From araizen@newmail.net Mon Aug 27 17:03:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 28 Aug 2001 00:03:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 5546 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2001 00:03:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Aug 2001 00:03:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO out.newmail.net) (212.150.54.158) by mta2 with SMTP; 28 Aug 2001 00:03:13 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer ([62.0.182.36]) by out.newmail.net ; Tue, 28 Aug 2001 03:04:03 +0200 Message-ID: <00f801c12f5d$598a89c0$8ab5003e@oemcomputer> To: References: Subject: Re: lo'e (was: Re: [lojban] ce'u Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 03:00:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 From: "Adam Raizen" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10196 la .and. cusku di'e > My own preferred but totally unofficial rule for zo'e > is that it is a variable bound by an existential quantifier with > maximally narrow scope, so zo'e are bound within the abstraction, > and hence {ro ka broda cu pa mei}. Do you mean with maximally broad scope (i.e. the prenex of the main bridi, unless I don't understand narrow vs. broad scope)? mu'o mi'e .adam.